posted 3rd January 2022
Freedom and Security are two opposite values, at opposite ends of a line. Think of them as being like two teams at different ends of a tug of war. Sometimes the rope pulls one way; sometimes it pulls the other. Your job as a debater is to decide which end of the rope your side of the motion lies on, and to keep pulling in that direction.
What is the difference between Freedom and Security?
If you value Freedom above all, you think people should be allowed to make their own choices, but should also accept the consequences of those choices. You accept that there is a risk in this approach. People might make bad choices, which might damage them, and might also damage others, but you believe that this is a risk worth taking, because it is more important to be free than to be safe. You might also argue that freedom works better than security, because people tend to make better choices when they have ownership of those choices and the consequences.
If you value Security above all, you think people's choices should be regulated to protect them and others. You accept that this means sacrificing some freedom, but you believe that this is a worthwhile sacrifice in order to protect individuals and society at large. You are likely to believe that security works better than freedom, because too much freedom tends to lead to chaos and injustice, with the strong ruling over the weak.
Here are some motions which split neatly on the Freedom vs Security clash, with some ideas about how to apply it.
1. This house would legalise drugs
Freedom sides with the proposition; Security sides with the opposition.
Freedom says:
- People should decide whether to harm themselves with drugs or not; it is a private decision, and not the business of the government. (Freedom is more valuable than Security)
- People are going to take drugs anyway. By making it illegal, you create crime and criminal gangs. (Freedom works better than Security).
Security says:
- People are likely to take drugs, but at least making them illegal makes it less likely and thus minimises the harm. (Security protects people.)
- The free taking of drugs will be disastrous for health and productivity. (Security works better than Freedom.)
2. This house would ban hate speech
Freedom sides with the opposition; Security sides with the proposition.
Freedom says:
- Free and open debate is an essential part of a healthy society. The risk of someone being offended is the price we pay for an open society. (Freedom is more valuable than Security.)
- Hate is better challenged in open debate than by being driven underground, allowing haters to present themselves as martyrs. (Freedom works better than Security.)
Security says:
- A healthy society is one where mutual respect is practised. This requires some censorship of unacceptable views. (Security is more valuable than Freedom.)
- By enshrining mutually respectful speech in the law, you will make people behave more respectfully. (Security works better than Freedom.)
3. This house would impose a 20 mph limit in cities.
Freedom sides with the opposition; Security sides with the proposition.
Freedom says:
- Provided people drive safely, they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they like. (Freedom is more valuable than Security.)
- Having a low speed limit will make drivers angry and frustrated and therefore likely to drive more dangerously. (Security works worse than Freedom.)
Security says:
- Keeping the roads safe, and cities less polluted, is more important than letting drivers have their way. (Security is more valuable than Freedom.)
- The speed limit may encourage more people to give up their cars and walk or cycle instead, which will make for a healthier and greener city. (Security works better than Freedom.)
